The Use and Reuse of Stone Circles

by Richard Bradley

  I have argued that there was a deliberate diplomatic targeting of north-east Scotland in the later second and early third century followed by a significant and deliberate decline in contact in the late Roman period, and interpreted this as a Roman strategy to cut off contacts with the emergent and troublesome groups which were termed Picts (Hunter 2007c). Aberdeenshire generally fits the trend. We have little but three late coins, though these are significant: the solidi from Leochel-Cushnie and Slains (which seem genuinely ancient losses) and a siliqua from Clatt, near Rhynie (Macdonald 1918, 247). These might better be seen in the context of fifth century (effectively post-Roman) activity which brought other precious metal hoards to Scotland, such as the Traprain treasure (Curle 1923). Indeed, in this context the reference to ‘silver articles’ found and removed from the Waulkmill quarry around the time of the first finds is tantalising (Coles 1905, 215); the use of the word ‘articles’ suggests they were not coins (which would surely have been recognised as such), and one wonders whether this was an early Pictish hoard similar to Gaulcross or Norrie’s Law, buried like them near a much older site (cf. Youngs 2013).

  The penannular brooches from the old and new Waulkmill discoveries can be explained as local preferences shaping the material drawn from the Roman world, but this is a far harder argument to make for the gaming pieces, which reflect much more direct influence from Rome (Hall and Forsyth 2011). Mark Hall notes the rare examples of certainly Roman gaming pieces on indigenous sites: south of the Antonine Wall from the major hillfort of Traprain Law in East Lothian and the crannog of Buiston in Ayrshire; north of the Wall from Camelon (which lay cheek by jowl with a Roman fort) and Fairy Knowe broch in the Forth valley, Dun Mor Vaul broch on Tiree (a late Roman polychrome example from a site relatively rich in Roman finds), and Waulkmill. The bias of this material to northern sites is one Dominic Ingemark has noted more generally with high quality glassware: more of the better material is found north of the Antonine Wall. One interpretation sees this as deliberate targeting of areas beyond the immediate remit of Rome with prestige materials as a diplomatic strategy. But vessel glass is more explicable than gaming pieces, as it would fit within existing traditions of feasting as social strategy. Gaming, on the other hand, was apparently novel. Was this an ‘intellectual import’, much as Ingemark (2014, 223–25) has argued that ideas of Roman dining accompanied glass vessels?

  To find one set of gaming pieces is interesting enough. To find several in the same burial ground is altogether more remarkable, especially when this coincidence takes place in an area where burials are otherwise unknown. Three of the four known inhumation burials seem to have included gaming pieces. Two of the four included closely similar brooches. This suggests a very specific local tradition being re-enacted in the burial rites. Was this reflecting a deliberate affiliation to the Roman world, reiterated in successive burials? Is this a mark of some local tradition, most likely bound up with an individual whose actions gave these items a local meaning? One obvious interpretation is to see the 1898 burial, with its silver Roman brooch and Roman gaming counters, as the founder, with the others emulating this in a brooch of non-precious metal and gaming sets of local materials. If correct, this would suggest all the burials with gaming pieces were later Roman Iron Age in date, though only the 1898 one offers any real typological dating.

  The imprecision in dating the 1898 Waulkmill find makes it difficult to fit into the wider story outlined above. If it is late second/early third century it would fit the picture of targeted contact to powerful groups; if later, it would be an interesting anomaly, suggesting things were more complex with local variation within this picture. Indeed, there are hints elsewhere in the northeast of similar local late Roman hotspots: on the Moray Firth coast, the long-known finds from Covesea Cave now find company in late Roman coins from Burghead and nearby Clarkly Hill (Bateson and Holmes 2013, 229; N. Holmes pers. comm.). This hints at localised areas of contact and diversity of response; while late Roman material rarely reached north-east Scotland (whether from Roman policy or local rejection), a few groups did make use of such material to mark out difference from others. The Waulkmill finds suggest that the Howe of Cromar was an area of targeted contact, whether in the mid- or the late Roman Iron Age.

  CHAPTER FOUR

  Croftmoraig stone circle, Perth and Kinross: a reinterpretation in the light of fresh excavation

  Richard Bradley

  The Croftmoraig stone circle

  The stone circle at Croftmoraig (otherwise Croft Moraig) was first documented in the eighteenth century and was excavated by Stuart Piggott and Derek Simpson in 1965. Their report on the project appeared in 1971 and has formed the basis of all subsequent discussions of the monument (Piggott and Simpson 1971).

  It was one of a series of stone circles along the River Tay or situated close to the shores of Loch Tay, but its location is unusual (Fig. 4.1). It is 3.5 km from the east end of the loch and only 500 m from the confluence of the Tay and its tributary, the Lyon, but it cannot be seen from either location. In fact it is separated from the lower ground by a slight ridge. That was where a round barrow was built overlooking the area to the north (Barclay 2005). The stone circle was more isolated, but it did command a view towards the southwest. The land immediately west of the monument is presently covered by trees and it is from a vantage point a little upslope to the east that the distinctive siting of the monument becomes more apparent, for the view over the circle is dominated by the distant peak of Schiehallion (Fig. 4.2). The same effect can be observed in winter when the vegetation is reduced and especially when the mountain is under snow.

  Figure 4.1. The location of Croftmoraig in relation to local round barrows and the Rivers Tay and Lyon (contours at 50 m intervals).

  Figure 4.2. The Croftmoraig stone circle viewed from the southeast with the summit of Schiehallion in the background (Aaron Watson).

  Figure 4.3. The layout of the different circuits at Croftmoraig in relation to the positions of the portal stones and the decorated slab. Contours are at 1 ft intervals and show the local topography before the 1965 excavation. Information from Piggott and Simpson 1971.

  The monument had five distinct elements: (A) a rounded mound of glacial origin; (B) a ring of nine monoliths, 11 m in diameter, four of which had fallen; (C) a pair of ‘portal’ stones outside the main circle; (D) an inner setting of eight standing stones measuring 8 × 6 m; and (E) a perimeter of stone blocks, 18 m in diameter, which has been interpreted as the remains of a rubble bank (Fig. 4.3). Excavation revealed a number of other features which had not been evident on the surface: a ring of posts, about 7 m in diameter, accompanied by a shallow gully and two slots interpreted as an entrance; a possible hearth in the centre of the site; and two oval pits, one beside each of the portal stones. A smaller pit associated with a deposit of charcoal underlay one of the stones in the bank. The interior of the site, and, in particular, the positions of the oval setting and the portal stones, contained a quantity of quartz (Fig. 4.4).

  The 1965 excavation

  The excavation is documented in detail in the 1971 report, but the available information is supplemented by a series of photographs and colour slides in the NMRS, a pencil plan of the central area of the site after excavation (too faint for reproduction here, but available online at Canmore ID 24891–DP 137220), and a small number of sherds in the NMS collections. The site was excavated in ten-foot squares, separated from one another by foot wide baulks, some of which were removed at the conclusion of the work (Figs 4.5–4.6). Only where the ground was disturbed or where individual monoliths were in danger of falling were parts of the site left unexcavated. Otherwise 90% of the monument was excavated down to the natural boulder clay.

  Figure 4.4. The stone circle viewed from the south. Note how the standing stones were erected on top of a mound and, on the left of the picture, how its profile was modified by cutting away part of its western edge (Aaron Watson).

  The structural sequence suggested in 1971<
br />
  The original excavators proposed a three-phase sequence for the site. The original monument consisted of a timber circle, with its entrance towards the east. Inside it a shallow ditch extended around part of the perimeter. The chronological relationship between this feature and the postholes was difficult to establish (Fig. 4.7), but the filling of the ditch contained sherds which Piggott and Simpson dated to the Neolithic period. They included pieces of Carinated Bowl as well as less diagnostic material characterised as ‘Flat-rimmed Ware’.

  The second phase saw the erection of an oval setting of monoliths, six of them in the filling of the earlier ditch. The ground surface was levelled and showed some traces of paving (Fig. 4.8). According to the original excavators, the same process of levelling extended to the building of the outer boundary, part of which was supported on a stone foundation cut into the edge of the mound.

  Finally, the outer circle was erected, together with the portal stones. The pits beside the pair of monoliths were interpreted as graves. They did not include any artefacts, but an unburnt body would have left no trace in the acid subsoil. There were no grave goods. Three smaller monoliths were inserted between the taller stones in the ring, one of them in line with the long axis of the oval setting. This structure was tentatively dated to the Early Bronze Age.

  The sequence was based on a number of considerations. The first was that timber settings should precede settings of monoliths, as they were known to do at sites in southern England. The identification of Neolithic pottery associated with this structure added weight to the argument. The stone oval was bedded in the filling of the ditch and followed the same footprint, suggesting that it was built soon afterwards. It was concentric with the ‘rubble bank’ that formed the perimeter of the monument.

  The last phase – the outer circle – was more difficult to characterise, as there was no stratigraphic relationship between it and the other features on the site. Two considerations encouraged Piggott and Simpson to assign it to a final phase of activity. It could hardly be earlier than a Neolithic timber circle for this would violate the sequence that had already been established on sites in lowland England. At the same time, the putative graves could be compared with burials dating from the Early Bronze Age. The excavators made it clear that this was simply their preferred hypothesis and that different interpretations of the sequence could be considered.

  Problems with the excavators’ interpretation

  That is exactly what has happened in recent years. Three issues have arisen since their report appeared in 1971. The first is that nearly all the pottery from Croftmoraig can now be recognised as a type whose currency extends from the end of the Early Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age: a period which could be two thousand years later than the original estimate. It is true that four or five Neolithic sherds were present on the site, but they were eroded and in any case they were found together with the Bronze Age pottery and must have been residual (Bradley and Sheridan 2005).

  Figure 4.5. The published plan of the 1965 excavation. After Piggott and Simpson 1971.

  Figure 4.6. General view of the 1965 excavation from the south. The ranging poles mark some of the excavated postholes. The positions of the packing show that the stone sockets were cut from a level above the surface of the natural mound. From a colour slide of the 1965 excavation now held by NMRS.

  Figure 4.7. A detail of the ‘ditch’ and postholes excavated in 1965. From a colour slide of the 1965 excavation now held by NMRS.

  Figure 4.8. The relationship between Monolith 20, the ring ditch and associated postholes. Note how the socket for the standing stone cuts through the filling of the ‘ditch’. From a colour slide of the 1965 excavation now held by NMRS.

  A second problem is that more recent excavations have documented close parallels for the ‘timber circle’ and its associated features. They are known as ‘ring ditch houses’ and are strikingly similar in shape and size to the example underlying the oval setting of stones (Fig. 4.9). That is particularly evident from an unpublished plan of this structure held in the site archive at the NMRS. Until recently it was thought that buildings of this kind dated from the Iron Age, but recent excavations in Scotland have established that they already existed by the middle of the Bronze Age (McCullagh and Tipping 1998; Cook and Dunbar 2008). A new study in fact suggests that such structures were mainly built in two phases, between about 1500 and 1300 BC and between 800 and 400 BC (Pope 2015, ill. 9.12). That would be consistent with the date of most of the pottery from Croftmoraig.

  A third problem concerns the orientation of the monument. In the excavators’ scheme it changes from the ESE (the alignment of the porch attached to the ‘timber circle’), to the SSW (the long axis of the oval stone setting that replaced it). In their view the original orientation was re-established when the outer circle and portal stones were erected, yet access from that direction would have been impeded by the presence of the outer enclosure which they assigned to their second phase. An alternative sequence would avoid that problem.

  That is what Alison Sheridan and the writer proposed in 2005, forty years after the original excavation took place. In the light of the problems already mentioned we suggested a different reading of the evidence (Bradley and Sheridan 2005).

  An alternative interpretation of the sequence

  In our view the earliest structure was the outer circle, for which good parallels appear on sites attributed to the Early Bronze Age. The portal stones seemed to be part of the same design. The second phase was dated by the later Bronze Age pottery found in 1965 and consisted of the ring of postholes, the timber porch, and the shallow ditch. At the time they were treated separately. The timber building was compared with the architecture of a roundhouse and the gully with the quarry for a low mound or cairn. Since 2005, the writer has favoured the alternative interpretation that these features should be treated together. Finally, the monoliths of the stone oval were bedded in the filling of the refilled ditch and must have been a subsequent development. They were concentric with the outer boundary ‘bank’ and we followed Piggott and Simpson in suggesting that they were built simultaneously.

  The new scheme meant that the first stone circle and the ring ditch house shared an ESE alignment. When the oval stone setting and the outer enclosure were built the axis was redirected towards the SSW where it was emphasised by placing a decorated stone on the perimeter of the monument. This interpretation did not depend on laboratory analysis, for Piggott and Simpson recorded that the only charcoal observed in 1965 was too small to be dated by radiocarbon. For that reason it was not collected.

  Problems with the new scheme

  The new scheme has also come in for criticism. Alex Gibson (2010a, 69) has suggested that it would have been impossible to build the timber porch so close to one of the monoliths (4) in the outer circle. The project archive allays these doubts, for it shows that the stone socket and the slot for the timber structure did not overlap. In fact the excavators themselves erected wooden posts in the sockets of their ‘timber circle’ and these structures did not impinge on one another.

  In the same way Adam Welfare (2011, 261) has questioned the new sequence on the grounds that the published section drawings suggest that the monoliths ‘were successively erected on an artificial platform laid over what was probably the remains of an earlier timber round-house’. That question was addressed in the 2012 excavation.

  Figure 4.9. The traces of the ring ditch roundhouse together with the positions of standing and fallen monoliths. Information from Piggott and Simpson 1971, supplemented by a pencil plan in the site archive (available online as Canmore ID 24891 – DP 137220).

  Finally, the chronology of ‘Flat-rimmed Ware’ has become less precise since the site was reinterpreted in 2005. In the light of radiocarbon dates it extends from the end of the Early Bronze Age for a period of almost seven hundred years. There was no way of telling where the structures at Croftmoraig fell during that lengthy period. The question became increasing
ly topical once it was known that a small stone circle on the Hill of Tuach at Kintore was enclosed by an earthwork, similar in appearance to a henge, between about 1050 and 850 BC. (This site is considered in Chapter 5.) It would be worth establishing if that structure was equivalent to the outer boundary at Croftmoraig.

  The aims of the 2012 excavation

  Although the site archive contained a wealth of information that did not find its way into the excavation report, it was clear that few of these difficulties could be resolved without fresh excavation on the site. The new work had the following aims:

  • To collect samples of micro-charcoal from stratified deposits that were not completely excavated in 1965;

  • To shed light on the procedures followed in the 1965 excavation so that the published and archive record could be interpreted with greater confidence; and

  • To resolve a few problems of interpretation suggested by a study of the photographs in the site archive.

  The research design for the 2102 excavation

  Work in 2012 was confined to four small trenches in areas where the results of the 1965 excavation posed problems, or where Piggott and Simpson recorded the presence of charcoal (Fig. 4.10). Small fragments of the kind that were not retained in 1965 might be suitable for AMS dating. These four trenches had the following objectives: